Skip to main content

tv   Washington This Week  CSPAN  June 30, 2013 6:30pm-8:01pm EDT

6:30 pm
personal information will end up in the hands of the government particularly the military as they are word about that barrier of constitutional issues about who should be having access to our information and how much information they should be receiving. it starts to mix and mingle a little bit. the nsa story that the circulating is you are seeing a similar dynamic but different in a fundamental way there. >> as we close here, republic interest. how will republican attention turned the legislative process? >> when i was interviewing a lot of these groups and people programs, these everybody was saying we are still not quite there yet. this was about a week ago. yetre not sure year -- where it is going. the polling is everywhere.
6:31 pm
some polls say we are opposed. if you ask people how was security would you trade it is a choice between giving up liberty for security, what you think of that? then the polls are in favor. the public is not 100%. congress is hearing that mixed message depending on their districts. >> the chairman said it best. he said that edward snowden case has essentially killed the momentum on it. >> these are big and complement desktop located issues. . thank you so much for your questions. -- these are big and complicated issues. thank you so much for your questions. >> thank you. ceo will speak at the national press club.
6:32 pm
she is chairman of the group called good 360. she ran for the u.s. senate in california a lost to barbara boxer. join us for her remarks on c- span. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our sunday roundtable with two veterans of capitol hill. john feehery and jim manley. gentlemen, thanks for being with us. this is the piece this morning from the "washington post" as we talk about immigration and the house of representatives. john boehner's laid-back style is acceptable in some circles. guest: with all due respect to my former boss senator reed, i honestly think that speaker boehner has the toughest job in
6:33 pm
town. he is trying to manage a caucus that is all but an -- unmanageable. i have known speaker boehner for a long time going back to when i used to work for senator kennedy. they worked together a no child left behind, pension reform, higher education act reauthorization, and a host of other bills. i have seen him legislate before. i know he knows how to do it. the fact is he's got the caucus that is so far out of the mainstream -- i'm not sure i could give any advice in how to approach those guys right now. host: just a minute to read what the "washington post" writes --
6:34 pm
guest: the house is a bit of a mess. they are having a hard time passing legislation. we will see what happens with immigration. so be a test or the speaker's style. i think what happened over the many years is you have seen this steadily eroding par of leadership as each member of congress has their own base of power, their own ability to raise money. when the house of representatives took away earmarks, it made it very difficult. i think the laid-back style is a good style. i a big fan of john boehner. you've got to yell at these members. you've got to intimidate them if you want them to vote your way. if you let them do their own
6:35 pm
thing, they will. i think you see that it is very difficult with this unruly band a lot of different opinions out there. i'm not sure if john boehner was going to start screaming at these members, i do not know if it would make a difference. you have 15 members of the house republicans caucus voting against john boehner when he became speaker. my advice was to kick them out of the caucus because i think at the end of the day, you've got to have some discipline. we will see how this develops. counting votes is difficult when you have members who have a lot of different opinions. host: this story, silicon valley prepares to push the house towards immigration reform. tech companies facing a fresh set up legal challenges in the republican house. time is running out for action. guest: a couple things good regarding the involvement of the tech companies, it is
6:36 pm
interesting -- the good news is they're getting involved, but the bad news is whenever you involve yourself in these hot button political issues, operations and associations get tarred by their involvement. it is not a zero-sum game. you get into the game like this, and you're going to suffer some blowback. having said that, the immigration reform -- the senate did a good job of passing it last week -- anyone who says they know what is going to happen in the house is lying. like john and a lot of folks, we are waiting to see how they will proceed. host: i'm not going to ask you for predictions, but for options print what are the potential options? what could happen in the house? guest: they will take up several different pieces of legislation good one that will be tough on border security, another on the high-tech visas. a third on farm workers. they are going to pass these elements, and eventually they will get to conference committee.
6:37 pm
from that committee, they will decide how much of the legislation, how much of the senate they want to agree on, and then they have to make a decision on timing. there has been this theory that you have to hurry up and get this done. i have another theory and that is that you wait until after the primaries or you wait until after the election in 2014 and have it in a lame duck. this immigration bill could take a while. to jim's point, it is important that companies get involved, but if they get involved, they have to give more than political money. the have to engage grassroots. they have to get constituents talking about this. those constituents do not -- when they talk to members of congress, they say, do not pass this amnesty. i am for the bill. i wanted to pass. if members of congress here from the bulk of their constituents that this is an amnesty bill, they will not vote for it.
6:38 pm
host: did it surprise you how critical some house republican members were to their senate counterparts with regard to senator corker and hoeven? 67 votes. it was a substantial win, but not enough to appease these members. guest: the house likes to criticize the senate. host of their work product is not very good. [laughter] guest: i do not intend to object. a couple different things -- there is going to be a house republican caucus on july 10 where for the first time republicans will sit down as a caucus and begin to work through these issues. number two, there are republicans within the caucus that do not want to do anything. there is also a handful within that caucus that would like to see something done, but they do
6:39 pm
not want their fingerprints on it. it all gets down -- very few of these guys, they're only concerned -- their only concern is facing a primary election. most of these republicans are in safe districts because of redistricting. like i said, the only thing they have to worry about is a primary probably from the right and the tea party types. host: john feehery and jim manley here at the table to take your calls and comments as we look back at the week in washington and look ahead as congress takes the we off -- the week off for the july 4 break. let's move ahead to 2016 for a moment. the front page of the "new york times" --
6:40 pm
let me share with you a couple of examples that jonathan martin refers to -- guest: i read that story this morning, talking about reruns. any republican that listens to failed republican strategist stuart stevens or karl rove needs to get their head examined.
6:41 pm
leaving that aside, i see something like that, and i see republicans that are scared. what is going to happen, i have no idea. i got a lot of respect for former secretary clinton. i have a lot of respect for vice president biden. i myself will hang back and see with these two folks are up to. like i said, anytime a top romney aide is criticizing anyone about reruns and old- school, i've got to laugh. host: the last time we elected a 69-year-old to the white house, ronald reagan. guest: i worked for obama in 2008. he was a fresh new face, and clinton was kind of stale news. to me would be the ideological thinker she is seen as a centrist, still seen as somebody who is the establishment wing of the democratic party. people fear her and the power of the democratic primary.
6:42 pm
for republicans, who they nominate is much more important. they've got to nominate someone who can not only appeal to the tea party, but to the broad middle and have some governing experience. be able to articulate a philosophy. republicans need to focus on that. hillary clinton, it is a long time until 2016. host: hillary clinton will be delivering remarks in september at the national constitution center in philadelphia. she will be introduced by former governor jeb bush. [laughter] guest: so it begins. this is the whole thing -- we had the bushes and the clintons dominating politics for two decades now. the big question is, is it time to move on? if you ask barbara bush, she would say yes. host: anthony joins us from washington, d.c.. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: good morning gentlemen.
6:43 pm
my comment is talking about comprehensive immigration -- some of the same people in the gang of eight, especially on the republican side, they were against the health care act. if you are talking about comprehensive immigration, that is 20 million more people -- a lot of it low-wage employment. how will this work? we basically do not have health care for them. a lot of low-wage employers do not offer health care. host: we will get a response. jim manley? guest: the fact is that the issue relating to health care it relates to immigration reform was some of the toughest parts of this process, especially in the house. the house and senate republicans have made it very clear that they do not want to have these 11 million immigrants to have
6:44 pm
access to healthcare. amongst the fights going on, especially on the house side, is whether they can even enter into these exchanges with their own money. again, it is a scare tactic by republicans. trying to throw obamacare into everything they can. they are spending a lot of time talking about it in immigration reform. host: before you respond, i want to share with you one of the latest ads. this is from the chamber of commerce. the president of the chamber of commerce standing behind the president -- this new 30-second spot released this week. [video clip] >> what we have today is chaos, de facto amnesty. >> we have to invite people to come out of the shadows. >> let's secure our borders, welcome our neighbors, and practice the values of freedom and family. >> we all wish we do not have this problem. even at the way it is is
6:45 pm
amnesty. you have to solve this problem. >> call congress, end de facto amnesty, create jobs and economic growth by supporting conservative immigration reform. host: we should point out this is what the chamber called a significant seven-figure by on cable and national -- buy on cable and national networks. guest: i would prefer the chamber would spend more money mobilizing the grassroots greed i do not think ads work that will. the caller's point about the cost of health care -- letting 11 million people into obamacare will drive up the debt. if you are looking at driving up healthcare costs, a lot of that is hidden by a legal immigrants here who do not have access to healthcare and are put in emergency rooms.
6:46 pm
that has a significant cost to the treasury. actually a significant cost at the local level. you can make the case that getting folks in a legal status where they have access to healthcare can have an impact on wages, a positive impact, and also have a positive impact on healthcare costs. this is a huge debate within the public and party. i am of the opinion that we have a broken system, and we've got to fix it. host: speaking of health care, this is a story that we focused on, the president's health care law, now commonly referred to as obamacare. this is on the issue of contraceptives -- some employers on religious
6:47 pm
grounds do not want to cover contraceptives in any form. now that the rule is final, it likely clears the path for legal action. courts have held off on some decisions on the lawsuit. now that the regulation is out, these challenges have a big green light to move forward. guest: a couple things. first of all, speaking of complicated, i was right when the link which was negotiated during passage of obamacare -- that took a couple days off my life, watching that being negotiated. that was some of the toughest parts of the bill. look, the fact is that that is where we are. i think that the administration has made some missteps in trying to formulate the regulatory language. we listened to the first part of the show -- there is still some significant disagreement amongst the american people on how to proceed. host: jim manley, whose resume includes his work on capitol hill for a number of leading democrats, including senator
6:48 pm
kennedy, and a term agile, and harry reid, and john feehery who worked for members including congressman bob michaels, majority whip tom delay, and former speaker dennis hastert. edward joins us from the united kingdom. this program is carried live on the bbc parliament channel. or in the uk are you coming from? you are an american citizen? caller: i am a dual citizen. host: thank you for joining us. caller: i wanted to comment on the ruling of the defense of marriage act. i have lived in the uk for nine months now, and i could not disagree more. i used to vote very liberally. i am an independent. i cannot believe the ruling. this country of the united states was founded on christian principles. people can say it is not a christian nation anymore, but i think we should follow the constitution.
6:49 pm
i think we have been really strayed away from the constitution lately. it is pretty much all i have to say about that. host: edward, thank you for the call. guest: i think that if you -- this fight is not over. what you will see, because of the ruling, that there is not a federal role in deciding this, what will end up happening is you have the states battling it out. you have already seen 36 states who have defined marriage as between a man and woman. i think 12 or fewer than that say that gay marriage is fine. this is not a done deal. i think you'll see that both sides will be energized by it. there are passionate people on both sides. what you will see is the legislative process work its way out. mostly at the state and low- level.
6:50 pm
host: this is from one of our viewers who said -- let me ask you about that word amnesty. it is the same debate that came up when you are in the senate when president george bush put forth his plan, some calling it amnesty, and others call it a path to citizenship in the other part is, if not citizenship, then what do you do for these 11 million illegal immigrants? romney called itself deportation, and many question whether or not that is even likely. [laughter] guest: in this judeo-christian system of ours, i do not think that self deportation is possible. it is cruel and inhuman to try to do that to people. we are beyond that. if you begin with the premise that there are 11 million folks try to get out of the shadows, you've got two options -- you can pretend that the current -- take a blind eye and pretend
6:51 pm
that it is not going on, or you can try to address the situation. thankfully, there are good folks on both sides of the aisle this time around that are trying to negotiate in good faith and trying to deal with this problem. the current situation is untenable for a host of reasons. i've got to give credit to senator schumer along with the rest of the gang of eight for negotiating a pretty good bill. i have some specific objections to it. host: let me go back to the first issue, which was on speaker of the house john boehner. there was this -- is that the case? guest: i think john boehner is plenty tough. i do not think you get to be speaker of the house by being a wallflower. he can make the tough decisions. he has made the tough decisions. when he needs to be
6:52 pm
confrontational, he can be. i think the bigger issue for what is going on in the house is the lack of ability of the leadership to exert power. i take us back to campaign- finance reform, mccain-feingold, when they destroyed the power of the political parties. then at the house took away the to do earmarks. this is not a john boehner issue. this is the ability of the leadership to exert discipline. if you're going to have a speaker of the house and a house majority that has to work its will, and the way to be successful is by exerting discipline, you need to give the leadership those tools. they do not have them from a fund-raising or earmarked standpoint. host: based on that point, let me share with you the point from dana milbank on darrell issa's scandals --
6:53 pm
guest: i think darrell issa has been very aggressive. host: too aggressive? guest: i think he has been fine. his job is the oversight chairman is to overdo oversight and to aggressively find out where there is wrongdoing. what i have always said about this irs thing, the problem was never the president calling the commissioner and saying, go investigate these people.
6:54 pm
what is at issue is a tax code that is unwieldy, too big, and it has too much power over people's lives. it is really retarding the growth of our economy. what we've got to do is reform the tax code could if we can use the scandal as a reason to reform the tax code, we would be far more productive. host: jeff joins us on the republican line from texas. caller: good morning. a couple of things. the first one on congress -- i am glad that we have somebody in congress, meaning the house, that will stop the obama agenda. i do not mind obama. i am a republican, but personally i do not care. when it comes to my kids and grandkids, i hate the fact that obama is spending them into oblivion like he is.
6:55 pm
on immigration, i do not care -- i do not care what they do with the people in this country, as long as they secure the borders and they get no benefits. the house kind of ticked me in the butt when we did the sandy bill and it went from $11 billion for the east coast to $70 billion is everybody had to have their pork. as far as the irs, if lerner wants to take the fifth, she can pack her bags and get out and never come back. was are my comments. i will take your comments off the air. guest: he is absolutely right about lois lerner. the more we have reached into her past, the more we wonder about what her political motivations are. guest: i agree with what the caller said. if we are going to have an immigration bill, we've got to make sure that we are smart about order control, although i think we have to make the gate
6:56 pm
or so more people can come in legally, and i think he is right that the house of representatives has done a pretty good job of stopping the obama administration in its tracks. you can see the obama administration trying to do other things without the congress. that is unfortunate. i agree mostly with the caller could host: this is from karen referring to jim manley -- guest: i believe that is the truth. he honestly has the toughest job in washington right now. he is trying to deal with the caucus that is unmanageable or they do not want to be managed. each and every one of these guys thanks that he or she should be the next speaker of the house, and they are marching to the beat of their own drummer. it is just an untenable situation. i disagree with some of what the last caller said.
6:57 pm
i see a house led congress that does not want to investigate. they just want scandal after scandal. they have no agenda. they have no new ideas. they will try to drive this irs scandal for as long as they can. they do not have any ideas. everything they do is wildly unpopular. host: another point on our facebook page -- you can join the conversation at -- to norman from idaho, on the independent line. caller: good morning. i am calling on the independent line.
6:58 pm
host: we can hear you, go ahead. caller: i'm calling on the independent line because i used to be a republican, and i just decided that there is nobody who is actually representing me. my were presented to us here, three of them -- representatives fear, three of them voted against the immigration bill, and i thank them. i have sent letters to the republican party and explained why i am no longer a republican. the last caller that was a republican -- i feel sorry for him -- but i want to talk to him right now and ask him, why don't we form a third party with sarah palin and all the conservatives? we can leave the republicans behind. they left us behind. i am very frustrated because nobody -- there is nothing that they do that represents us.
6:59 pm
host: let me ask you this question, and then i will put john feehery to answer your question. who do you identify the most in the public and party in the past? caller: we have not had a to conservative run for president. ronald reagan was a warm, nice person, and he was conservative, then he went along with the immigration bill because he was promised the other stuff, just like republicans are promising now, all this garbage. i do not believe anything will happen. they will come here and get citizenship. that is it. host: i will stop either so we can get a response. thank you for calling. guest: if you look at the last guest: if you look at the last election, one of the most fascinating things is how republicans and independents
7:00 pm
were breaking. romney, and everyone thought, including me, thought that would be a good way romney could win the election could all those independents were former republicans who were angry at the party. sarah palin has made the case that she might not want to be a republican anymore. a lot of republicans would be fine with that. guest: a lot of democrats as well. guest: the party is going through some cleavages right now. there is the right-wing portion of the party, the more moderates, the more establishment wing, they are having a hard time communicating with each other and finding common ground. hopefully one of the things that will happen is there is a binary choice. if you have a third party, it gives democrats all the power. they have a chance to do whatever they want. host: i want to share with you to events that happened this last week.
7:01 pm
jeb bush, former governor of florida, speaking in new york at the new york conservative party dinner on tuesday. we carried it online on our website as part of c-span's video library at former governor bush talked about immigration. [video clip] >> we need to continue to improve our border security, and tracking down the thousands of people who overstay their visas. 40% of the people here illegally in through legal visas. a great country ought to be able to figure out who those people are and politely ask them to leave when their visas expire. getting here and staying here illegally should be much harder with greater risk and greater cost than staying, coming and staying illegally, but today, there is no legal immigration for great numbers of people. that is why we need to have a comprehensive approach. order security by itself will not solve this problem unless we make a path to legal status for
7:02 pm
those that we want to, and allow them to come. host: jim manley, going back to our conversation about 2016, based on his view about immigration, how does that play in a republican primary? guest: i'm not so sure i'm the best person to answer that. [laughter] before i do answer it, regarding his comments on border security, i guess we now know how to get republicans on board, at least in the senate, and that is to spend $30 billion on border security and doubling the number of enforcement agents. leaving that aside -- host: republicans still said no. guest: absolutely. but it was enough to get it over the goalposts and pick up 67 votes. leaving that aside, it will be interesting to see how this all plays out. there are vast fissures within the caucus about how to proceed. for many republicans, they do
7:03 pm
not want to do anything. others recognize, based on part of what they feel from business interests, that something needs to be done. i think this is symbolic of a long-standing issue within the republican party. we will have to wait and see how it plays out. host: to eliminate that point, let me share with you the comments of senator ted cruz as he appeared on the rush limbaugh show, a very different take on immigration and the support -- also rand paul. [video clip] >> the gang of eight bill provides that a few people here illegally will be eligible for green cards. that means they are eligible for the full panoply of federal welfare benefits. i think we should welcome immigrants from across the globe, but you cannot welcome immigrants with a full welfare state where the incentive is to
7:04 pm
be dependent on government. we want people coming here who want to achieve the american dream, and this system, this bill would have on enormous cost on the state, treasury, and also the federal treasury. >> that is one of the many things missing, the assimilation to a distinct and unique american culture. we are balkanized and in this country. people are coming from wherever. they are staying in those cultures in pockets, population centers across the country. the romantic days of immigration in the early 1900s, those people came here, and they remained in their identity, but they wanted to be americans. they wanted to participate in whatever they thought the american dream was. that is a distinction that can be drawn today. host: your take on the exchange between rush limbaugh on his radio program and senator ted cruz of texas. that was before the vote is past week. guest: not that surprising. they are against the bill because they think it will lead
7:05 pm
to more people being on welfare, it will cost the treasury, and you will have a bunch of here that are not americans. my own view is if you fix this broken system, you are going to have a greater economic growth, more people who are going to be not on a pathway to citizenship but a pathway to the middle class, which is leading to a more robust country, a more diverse country, which has always been the american experience. rush limbaugh talks about how people in the past did not leave their own enclave. that is not true. milwaukee was a german city. they spoke german more than they spoke english in milwaukee. the irish had their own communities. the italians had their own communities. the jews had their own communities. for a couple generations. that is how america was built, it was built by immigrants. the idea -- mexican immigration is not what it once was -- it is
7:06 pm
now mostly from other parts of latin america. they provide such economic vitality. asian-americans, they provide such economic vitality to this country. without them, we would not be america. i think this idea of us changing america is not true. host: if you are listening on c- span radio, we are heard coast- to-coast on xm channel 119. if you are tuning in on c-span television, our guests -- democrats jim manley and republican john feehery. john joins us on the republican line from florida. welcome to the conversation. caller: give me a minute here. about a year ago, i heard on the tv, a liberal station, that there were 65,000 terrorists plus the illegal aliens coming across the border every year.
7:07 pm
i have renamed marco rubio's bill the terrorist illegal alien amnesty bill. they are not going to have any back run checks on these people because in these century cities, they are not even allowed to pull them over for crimes. they do not arrest them. they do not do anything. they commit murders and do everything. they are not arresting them. john mccain was on there the other day. he was crying about, coming across the desert in 110 degrees, no water. i did not hear him say the first thing about americans that these people are coming over here and killing or robbing or whatever they are doing to them. host: john, take your point and turn it into the form of a question. caller: i do not want this illegal alien terrorist amnesty bill passed. there are 23 million people out
7:08 pm
of work. they are lying about the 11 million. now to cut it down to 11 million immigrants, a few years ago it was 30 million. they took all the jobs. we are sick of them being in this country could mexico deported 40 million of them. it did not cost them anything. just cut their benefits off. host: thank you for the call. jan has this point -- guest: this is a recurring theme in america. you have immigrants that come here to try to find the american dream, and people here who say, let's get rid of these immigrants. the whole term paddy wagon came about because all of our people, the irish, we were paddies thrown on police wagons.
7:09 pm
the irish are here. i have a sympathy for people who have come here to achieve the american dream because that is what america is built on. host: politico pro -- host: it is not the heat out west, but there is a book entitled the "slow burn." the debate is to local right now, it has not reached a critical mass into the national dialogue. guest: it has not. it keeps getting subsumed by one other so-called scandal after another. like the irs scandal. as i point out in that article, but if you do the google and check in the local media, there is a lot of stories being written about the impact of the sequester, but it is not really filtering into the national conversation. as far as i can tell, we are on the sequester from here on out.
7:10 pm
for months to come. i don't see anything changing a simpson. host: the potential to change it. what is going to happen? guest: i have my crystal ball here. it means they will have a bigger deal. my guess is, you see the finance committee putting out papers saying that, you know, your tax break, which i think of a precursor to perhaps getting some sort of tax reform, as part of a deal on entitlement reform, which hopefully will get us a bigger budget to deal. the problem here is what policymakers at the beginning of the year is a raise taxes, and they cut spending, discretionary
7:11 pm
spending, the one place you should not be cutting spending. they ignored long-term tax reform and ignored more importantly long-term entitlement reform, which will hopefully put us on a glide path towards economic stability in the future. the sequester, as jim has pointed out, is not really a national story, but it ought to be because it has a real impact on a variety of different programs, how to create jobs in the short term. now, i think it is good to have some retrenchment of federal spending. i think it is always good to get more efficiencies out of the government. the sequester has done a pretty good job of getting rid of a lot about spending. that being said, the big battle is not between republicans and democrats. it is entitlement spending and discretionary spending. right now, entitlement spending
7:12 pm
is taking discretionary spending's butt. host: gail on the democrats line from maryland. good morning. caller: good morning and i love your tie. host: which one? caller: steve, your pink tie is so pretty. host: it is from my daughter. caller: that is very nice. it makes it even more attractive. my comment is this -- we are not a theocracy. we have separation of church and state in this country. president obama inherited the worst legacy since roosevelt. i don't think anyone could doubt that. i just read an article about the top 10 greatest countries. they all have socialized medicine. canada was number one. and there was a range of studies
7:13 pm
that came up with the good policies in these countries, most of them were scandinavian countries. roe v. wade is settled law. both roberts and alito agreed to that. whereas the and the parties is their political statement at a time when our country was facing bush's impending depression, that their number one goal was to destroy president obama's administration. to me, that was one of the most unpatriotic things i have seen in my 68 years. the constitution says that a person's total control over their own body is the hallmark of civil rights.
7:14 pm
and i cannot think of a single problem that we have today, such as the flooding of immigrants across our borders, which started after reagan's amnesty. and all these subsidies that go to the very corporations who are poisoning us and making us sick while they are creating more unhealthy people. the republicans protect them. host: ok, gail, thank you for the call. we appreciate it. john feehery, would you like to respond? guest: she gave pretty much the liberal talking points. a lot of people would agree with her on the democratic party, and a lot of people would disagree with him was everything to 70 republican party. host: the "national journal" has a piece this morning looking ahead at 2014 and the race for governor. one of the worst senate candidates in years now may run for governor.
7:15 pm
for martha coakley, that may actually be a great idea. martha coakley 2010 special election campaign for the ted kennedy seat was not even slightly slightly pretty. now three years later, the "boston globe" reporting she is giving serious thought to running in 2013. she actually has a strong case for a run. guest: she actually does have a pretty good case to run, i will agree with that, but having said that, i am still singed from the experiences and what i saw during her last run for the senate. i defy you to find a worst campaign than that one. the worst example was the situation at red sox stadium where she refused to campaign, or she did not campaign in front of fenway. it was just something that folks are never going to forget. i guess is what i'm trying to say.
7:16 pm
host: do you want to weigh in? guest: we tried to win senate seats, but we are very competitive for governorships. i think we have got a mitt romney -- a shot at winning this. host: but go to bob in wisconsin. caller: good morning, and thank you for our call, and thank you for our country having the ability to do these things. other countries have no idea what freedom is. host: we thank our cable supporters. caller: i think our veterans. i'm a veteran. i'm under the impression that these illegals are breaking american law. why are we putting up with them?
7:17 pm
why should they not be punished and put away you go as an american, go to mexico without proper papers and see what happens to you. you will get arrested and put away. now, i understand certain things they talk about the hardship, but they came here illegally. breaking american law. please deport them, give back america to those who came here to be american. host: bob, let me ask you about that point because we have heard about the issue of the deportation. how do you do that? caller: you pick them up like they do in every other country, put them on a bus, process them back to mexico, tell mexico here they come. kick them out. and that lady before, go talk to a canadian, ma'am, and talk to them about their healthcare. a friend died up there waiting to get health care. how dare she? thank you. host: thank you, bob.
7:18 pm
guest: the practical applications of that, the legal immigrants, they are terrible, blah, blah, blah. the vertical implication is that our economy will collapse. if you want to throw them in prison, our prisons are already full. he is absolutely right that it is a scandal that we have 11 million people here who are not documented. host: in over 30 years, when president reagan signed that bill in 1986, we were at an estimated 3 million. some say that number is even higher than 11 million. guest: what that means we have got to fix our system. we've got to make sure that there are incentives. we've got to secure the border, which i think every person talks about it. but we have to do it in a smart way. talking about the practicality of it, you've got to be able to kick 11 million people out of the country.
7:19 pm
you cannot that the men present. it is not work. host: i want to get your reaction to the story on the nsa "has been working with at least seven european countries to collect personal communications data." according to madison, countries have formed secret agreements with the u.s. by these agreements, nations are categorized by the u.s. according to their trust level, and of course all this comes as president obama was in germany, criticized by the german chancellor on this program, according to this story, a program that she certainly was familiar with. guest: yes, which is why i think those governments overseas, and europe, need to be careful about
7:20 pm
their criticism about the u.s. when it comes to these programs. let me say this -- i think that snowden has raised some very interesting issues. we can talk about that, but the fact of the matter is when i hear him say that he took this job with the contracting firm, or with the nsa, to try and get access to the secret, that really gives me reason to pause. add that to the fact that, you know, he went to hong kong, he is now in russia, allegedly, and he is thinking about going to ecuador or cuba, neither of which are back to the free press, and a lot of the stuff is not beginning to ring true with me. host: this is from the "washington post" this morning. secretary of state john kerry continues with shuttle diplomacy, something we heard in the 1970's with henry henry kissinger.
7:21 pm
host: do either of you think something is going to come from this? guest: it could. you never know. what is most interesting is how kerry, how hard he is working. it is actually kind of interesting because when hillary left at secretary of state, everyone was saying she was the best thing since sliced bread, but i think kerry has done a pretty good job kind of showing her up a little bit. if he does get something, it is all in him, because of his hard work. he deserves credit. guest: despite the fact that he is gone the extra mile to try to reach agreement, i do not see anything coming out of the middle east anytime soon. host: democrats line in dallas, good morning. caller: hi, it is the independents line. i wanted to say a few nice things about john feehery.
7:22 pm
i know john, and we had a professional debate about health care on his blog, the, where i affirmed obamacare because i believe that healthcare is a right, and john, of course, denied, was in the negative about obama care. but there is a point that we both agreed on, but i think it's applicable right now. i will say that, but just before i go, i wanted to give jim manley another candidate who is worse than coakley. let me make my point, you think john and i both agree with, and our written debate is on john's website, and that is that obama
7:23 pm
care is the fraud bill, there is absolutely no questions about it. in order for that bill to have been put together, obama had to buy votes, there was the nebraska cornhuskers, the louisiana purchase, and that bill was put together sort of like how surgeons operate on incoming wounded. he just do the best you can with what you have, but it was not a laser focused surgery. it was just put together any way he could do it. so i definitely believe it is an imperfect bill, and i am sure john would agree with that. what i think is that's congress should stop talking about repeal, repeal, repeal because we all know that that is not going to happen, but what we can do is -- you know, the thing that we can all agree on that are bad in the bill, we can get
7:24 pm
rid of, and we can improve. host: we are short on time, i will have you jump in. caller: sharron angle in nevada. host: i will stop either because we only have a few minutes left. john feehery. guest: good to hear from you. we do believe that obama care is flawed, and we have another agreements that we talked about on my blog. the big question is -- do we repeal it? is it so bad that we can repeal it, or can we make it better and improvement and keep remnants that will continue to skew the healthcare marketplace, and that is a big deal with publicans. guest: i want to know how much you pay to get it on the phone like that. we can all agree that john feehery is a nice guy. host: kevin, stay on the line, i want to share with you one of the -- one other event.
7:25 pm
we cover it live on the c-span network, part of our white house coverage. the candidates are in early primary caucus states, including rand paul. that in south carolina. here is a portion of what he said to republican activists in colombia. [video clip] >> i have had a few questions for hillary clinton. [laughter] [applause] she has not really answer them to my satisfaction, and i have got a few more that keep cropping up all the time, so i am hoping we get her back when trey's committee and issa's committee will bring her back. i frankly think she is not telling the truth. i asked her point blank -- were we sending arms from libya to turkey to syria, and might that have sunday to do with the terrorist act that happened? she said she had never heard about it. it has been in the "new york times," it has been on fox news.
7:26 pm
my question is -- if it is classified, are you allowed to buy? that is what came up with the nsa issue. when a national intelligence director came before the senate, and he was prompted in advance, senator wyden wanted him come i'm going to ask you this question, i do not want to spring it on you, i want you to think about appeared is the nsa collecting any data on americans? and he said in public forum, no, we're not collecting data on americans. that is an out and out lie. it is against the law to lie to americans. what does that do? they say the leaks have damaged our national security. you know what has damaged our security is lying here and now i don't know whether to trust them. [applause] host: comments from senator rand paul. another story this morning inside the "new york times" by jonathan martin. what is this all about? guest: i think that rand paul represent the libertarian wing
7:27 pm
of the party. anyways he can attract a much younger audience than a typical republican. so by laying into hillary, he is taking on a sacred cow of the democratic party. if he can get her, it can elevate himself. she is a formidable foe, so it will be an interesting discussion. host: caller from marion, massachusetts on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to talk about the immigration issue. i think they put in policies where the people that broke into our country, where they will actually sell support themselves, you put in basically the employers who were hiring them, if they have no work, they will go away. they will self deport.
7:28 pm
i also wanted to speak on martha coakley running for governor. the democratic machine in massachusetts is so corrupt. we saw markey get in to the pandering and everything. the republican always comes up short in this state because the machine is so corrupt, and i would like to see a republican candidate get in and make an even playing field in politics in massachusetts. i certainly would. host: ok, we will get a response. jim manley. guest: i'm not quite sure what to say. maybe if the republican party of massachusetts came up with better candidates than scott brown or gabriel gomez, they would have a better shot to win a seat. the fact of the matter is, that is not where the people of messages are right now. they a mini fascination with republicans a few years ago, but when they finally saw scott
7:29 pm
brown here in washington, across the street in the capital voting time after time for republicans, they decided they had had enough. host: a couple of other things happening this weekend this month. former commerce meant jesse jackson junior will be sentenced. he can face four years in prison. your thoughts. guest: i don't know. you read the stories about that, and you think -- all you can think about is why. i think it is too bad. i'm not quite sure what else i can say besides that. guest: his dad, obviously a big figure. i think that he has some big shoes to fill with his father. what happens in politics is you are in the spotlight, and for a lot of people, can be very tough because you kind of run the highlife, and you get caught up in things, and all of a sudden you are going to jail. we have seen the story many times in congress.
7:30 pm
it is an unfortunate, sad story. host: we saw the defeat of the farm bill in the house of representatives. is that a precursor to immigration, or are these two very different issues? guest: i think frank lucas is not given up on the farm bill. you're still is a lot of important parts of the program. for republicans, they have to make a decision. they won a bill that is even more conservative, and then hopefully get the vote that they need. they need 50 votes because then you lose all of the democrats. or you won't try to get a bipartisan bill. that is very difficult to figure out. you have the same problem with immigration. if the immigration bills, i think they will take a different approach. they will do different build and try to get to conference on one of those bills. i am hopeful they will get something done. host: you get the final word.
7:31 pm
guest: when i talk about the house as unmanageable these days, one of the case in point is what happened to the farm bill. i am afraid it is a precursor of the things to come. we have the farm bill, we have that the appropriations process where both parties at extreme levels, $70 billion, i believe, between the two, above and beyond the sequester cuts, we have appropriation process that is broken. we had to deal with the debt limit again. that will be interesting. host: jim manley and john feehery, thank you both for being with us. >>ve a great july 4 weekend. rand paul spoke at a fundraiser on friday. a southtroduced by carolina representative. this is about half an hour.
7:32 pm
>> i have been asked to introduce a friend of mine. in washington, this if you want a friend, get a dog. that is because you cannot trust anybody up there. your friend one day is just trying to get something out of you and to disappear the next not followed have that rule precisely. i have made some very good friends. some of my best friends. it is true how close trey, jeff, tim, and i have become. the scoutmaster is a good friend of mine. he is still the senior member of the delegation. i do have some good friends, but not many. it is difficult to make friends and washington, d.c. tonight, i have been asked to introduce one of those people. talk is relatively cheap in washington. some of the talk is actually
7:33 pm
predicted. when i first got to washington, senator dement called and said, you have been doing some good work. why don't you come over and meet some of my friends on the senate side up. we started getting together once or twice a month to have dinner and talk about conservative issues. center dement would bring over the senators. we would talk about things. we started talking about the fiscal cliff, those kinds of things. it is very rare that you actually see that talk go into action. that is where you learn where the real leaders are. we you're crazy things happening in washington, and there is a certain -- we hear there are crazy things happening in washington, and there's a certain outrage. you call me or you call jeff and you are outraged about what is happening in the country. and you expect us to do more than just talk about it up in washington, d.c.
7:34 pm
and there are very few people who do that. there are very few people would take the outrage that you and i share internet and to action. the gentleman i the one to introduce you to today is a delmon who takes that outrage and those words and turns them into action. i now, you know what happened when he took a relatively simple question and, in my mind it was one of the great examples of action in washington, d.c. this year. he said, is it okay the the for the united states government to kill u.s. citizens with drones? you would expect the answer to that the know. -- the answer to that to be no. a lot of us actually went out and did something about it. i heard how long you talked, 12 hours, 14, whenever.
7:35 pm
it has not been just on our individual liberties. it was not just in a filibuster. it has been on gun-control. just yesterday, this awful senate bill that got past, the type of thing they're rand -- that's rand study of -- that rand stood up and took action against. it is highly unlikely that the republicans lost just because of grand paul. and by beginning of, then i went outside to explain how son beat me in golf. he's a great leader and a great
7:36 pm
senator and it is my pleasure to have him here in south carolina. my friend, ran the call. [applause] rand paul. [applause] >> he neglected to mention that it is a short list of friends, right? it is just a short list. and and how my errors came up, but none of his seemed to. we play every year with the democrats, and we are still pretty mad about this. we got 22-nothing this year, and last year it was 24 or something. and it's one guy, he was 22 years old and he played baseball
7:37 pm
in college. and i say, look, democrats, you guys love them -- regulations so much. wido we passed a regulation that your pitcher can only pitch for two innings? so far, have not gotten anything back from them on that. you guys like equality of outcome, right? maybe we need to get six hours per inning. and if nagl -- if y'all score six runs, maybe we should get six runs, just to be fair. i got up early this morning, and i could not find my cellphone. i looked everywhere for it, but i could not find it. i went in and ask harry reid i could borrow his phone. do you think the nsa is surprised to see harry reid and a republican gathering in south carolina? [laughter] i get a lot of my news from jimmy kimmel, and he said the president the other day was at a middle school. he was offering something for
7:38 pm
free, which usually does, free high speed internet. and it was kind of an awkward moment and a kid packed -- an awkward moment, because a kid walked up and said, "y, so you can read my e-mail faster? [laughter] there was a little girl that wanted $100 and she said she would do good things with it. she wrote a letter to god asking for $100. the postmaster thought that was kind of neat, but where do our work -- where do i need it? emailed to the president, and the president said that is cute. and the president said to mike centre $5. and your parents said to always write a thank you. and she said, dear god, thank you $45. but next time, do not send it through washington, they stole thank you for the $5. but next time, do not send it to washington. they stole $95. and another one, a guy walks up to a woman on the street and
7:39 pm
says, pardon me, ma'am, do you know that the president has pardon the sequester and send it to portugal? and one after another they said, they deserve it over there. you wonder who is voting in the elections. and then one woman said, you heard that north korea is threatening bombs and doing weapons tests. you heard the president has sent them the sequester. and once again, they deserve it. we have a disconnect between an electorate who does not know what a sequester is, or where benghazi is, but we have them engaging in the debate may be, and showing up to vote may be. on the sequestered, we are
7:40 pm
actually winning the battle on this. the president said the sky is falling. the world will end. oh, my, we cannot possibly have this sequestered, which is a cat in the rate of increase in spending. i.v. zena charts on tv? here is without a sequester. -- mahtesian the charts on tv? here is without a sequester. here is with the sequestered. the same we can never knows of guided tours in the united states, do you know what he did? he had an extra $250 million to send to egypt. we have extra money in a shoebox somewhere to sent to egypt. we have no money. the cover is bare, but we have money to send overseas. when i see a mob on television
7:41 pm
during the american flag and chanting "death to america" i say, not one penny more. [applause] and the president said, where could we possibly cut? how will we deal with the sequestered? we waited a year-and-a-half after the question was asked in 2011. a year-and-a-half later he says, what are we going to do? we have to cut out the air traffic controllers, the meat inspectors. your meat will be granted. planes will be crashing into each other. we have a $4 trillion government and that is the first thing you're going to cut back i think people -- that is the first thing you're going to cuts? i think people saw through it. he is playing games. egypt has gotten over $2 billion this year from us.
7:42 pm
we are still sending money to pakistan. pakistan imprisoned the doctor to help us to get bin laden for the rest of his life, and what do we do? we say, oh, please release him, but here is another billion dollars. they do not understand that kind of leverage. they understand, don't send anything and they will release him. i introduced a bill that said, no more money to pakistan unless you release him. in my opinion, you should not send it at all, but being the moderate and i am, i said, we would give it back to you. you actually get all the back foreign aid that you think you deserve if you release him. i got 20 votes in the rest -- in the senate. i lost over half of the republicans on this and all of the democrats. i frankly can't say that if it was a democratic fund-raiser in columbia, -- i can say that if this was a democratic fund raiser in columbia, it would not
7:43 pm
be this big, but it would be spending more money. in washington, they still think no one will be our friend unless we send them money. the president of egypt, morsi, stands next to his spiritual leader who says "death to israel" who is also says the israelis are descendants of pigs and dogs. i have an idea for another amendment, and so far they have not let me vote on this. wido we ask part -- president morsi to publicly recognize israel's right to exist before he gets another penny? [applause] interestingly, nobody wants to vote on these amendments. we have also talked about what you could do to cut spending.
7:44 pm
if you do not rehire people retire from government, that is $6 billion a year. the year and a half you waited, that is $9 billion. we literally only needed about $40 billion. we are 25% of the way there. we spent $9 billion on air travel. one thing that calls me to no end -- galls me to no end is i will have people fly from washington and stay in a $500 per night hotel to have a meeting when we could have met in bowling green at no expense. weekend cut $2.2 billion from travel and save the military being cut from travel. [applause] simply have competitive
7:45 pm
contracts. in government, we do not give the bids to the lowest bidder, but to the lowest bidder that is using union scale wages out of chicago. we have a prevailing wage law that says, maybe the average car voire dire in colombia that make makes $30 per hour, but it has to be $70 per hour. schools and roads being built sometimes cost up to 20% more. why don't we get rid of davis- bacon? it will save us $10 billion a year. [applause] but i don't think the president was really listening, so i came up with a few other ideas to get his attention. for example, we spent $325,000 on the robotic score last year. why would we need that? scientists wanted to know if a rattlesnake would strike a
7:46 pm
squirrel that was not writing its tail. but they could not get into this world -- get a squirrel to volunteer to do that. $325,000 for that. we spent half a million dollars developing a unit to mars. if you have a child that is 26 years old and they're waiting -- were waiting for them to move out? it is the proper job for them. -- it is the perfect job for that. develop a government study. the prerequisites for doing the study were pretty strict. your kid had to like food. after spending $5,000 per person for all expenses paid trip to
7:47 pm
hawaii, they discover the best thing these college kids to come up with a copy to. -- could come up with, pizza. there is waste everywhere. everybody who has ever been in the military knows there is waste. that does not mean i'm against national defence. it is one of the most important things that we spend money on. is it legitimate constitutional function it should be a priority. but that does not mean we write a blank check. we should audit the pentagon. too big to be audited? tom coburn on the south, one of the great deficit hawks and wease warriors up there. -- tom coburn found this out, one of the great deficit hawks and waste warriors up there, he found $7 billion that could be cut from the defense budget. they handed in $1.8 billion for
7:48 pm
a study to develop world of beef jerky. i'm not sure how that is keeping the russians or others at bay. they had $5 billion in there to study a collection of fish. i caught -- i called it a bunch of goldfish, and they were actually golden fish. there's a lot of money being wasted in a $4 trillion budget. one more, $3 billion spent to study monkeys on math onmeth. does anyone -- monkeys on meth. does anyone think that they are not just as crazy as people crazymeth? -- as people on meth? if you do a 1% sequester across
7:49 pm
the entire budget, the budget balances within five or six years. connie mack came up with this idea and a lot of people have endorsed it. cut 1%. we have a trillion dollar budget and you cut 1%? the reason is you cut 1% from a baseline of zero. everything they talk about in washington is a lie. the budget is going up. baseline is about 5%. remember the dead commission and the biggest ever or to cut was that commission and the biggest they were. to cut was $4 trillion.
7:50 pm
spending, you can anticipate it to go up $9 trillion. malika -- will we talk about a baseline of zero, it is only about $30 billion cut, but cbo would call it $600 million a year because they plan on getting more money. i have to stop all this. i have had a few questions for hillary clinton. [applause] she has not really into them to my satisfaction. i have a few more that keep cropping up and i hope that we can get her back. i, frankly, think she is not telling the truth. i asked her point blank, where we sending arms from libya to turkey to syria, and might that have had something to do with
7:51 pm
the terrorist attacks that have happened? she said she had never heard of it. it has been written about in the "the new york times" 10 times and has been on fox news. if it is classified, are you allowed to lie? that is what came up with the nsa recently were the national intelligence director kaine before the senate and he was promised -- came before the senate and he was prompted in advance. i wanted to think about this question, is the nsa collecting any data on americans? and he said publicly, know. it is against the law to lie to us. what does that do? people said the leagues have damaged our security. do you know what has damaged our security? lying, because now i don't know whether i can trust him. [applause]
7:52 pm
they now say that there are 50 terrorists that we could not have caught without this secret mining of american phone calls. but i watch what they say, though. they say, with this program and/or other sources. i am forecasting terrorists. i have no sympathy for the tsarnaev boy. i would pull the switch after he is convicted. we had a tip on the boston bomber. the tip was that russia thought he might be a terrorist. we could not get an interview, but then he went back to chechnya we are mindful calls of america. we are up to our eyeballs in debt. we are not seeing the guy that has been tipped off to us. the underwear bomber, he was tipped off to us. he's still got on the plane and try to come over here.
7:53 pm
old american kid with spina bifida is going to blow up a plane? do you think a veteran who has lost both legs is one to try to blow up a plane? you do not make a veteran take his prestige is off to go through the scanners hobbling -- his prosthesis off to go through the scanners hobbling. if you are in international traveler visiting from pakistan, you deserve more scrutiny. after 9/11, we had a special program for student visas. from 25 countries we looked especially hard at your student visas. why? because 16 of the hijackers were overstaying their student visas. was it profiling? yes, because only certain people were attacking. why do we use some brain sends to go after the people who are
7:54 pm
attacking us? [applause] i tried to reinstitute this with an amendment to the immigration bill. i said, let's restart is targeted looking at student visas from certain countries, but let's also do it with refugees from other countries. we have admitted 70,000 people from iraq for asylum. i thought that was when you were escaping dictatorship. we have won the war and 70,000 of them are here. 80% living government housing. they should be in iraq making their country a better country. that is harsh, but that is really what should happen. we do not need them here immediately and all on government assistance. but we don't want to talk about national security with regard to
7:55 pm
our borders. the boston bomber, when we did catch the young one -- one was killed in a firefight and the other was wounded. the boston policeman came to speak at a fund-raiser and i thought it was important. you may not all agree, but it is worth thinking about. he said, when i got to the scene, it was horrific. i was applying tourniquets and trying to save people's lives. it is just hard to imagine people blown to smithereens. and he said, then we have got a stable and we were in pursuit of these two killers, and i was angry at them -- and i still feel this incredible anger. but he said, after the firefight and we capture them, we did not drive them through the street and beat them with tire irons. because we are civilized. it is what separates us from them.
7:56 pm
this young man is evil. there is nothing good about killing women and children and think that will lead vance a political cause. -- will advance a political cause. he is going to get an attorney. he is going to be convicted and he will be punished. but it is better than putting someone to death in other places around the world and not trying them. i am for getting information out of him, but indefinitely sending people there, or to give american citizens, is not the way to go about it. we had an american citizen accused of terrorism to be sent to guantanamo bay without a charge, without a trial. there's been a time in our history when we did stuff like this, when a black man in 1910 would be strung up from the nearest tree if someone accused him of rape. there was no trial. it was an awful time in our
7:57 pm
history. we took the japanese in world war ii and put them in concentration camps, an awful time in our history. it is a novel concept to think that we're going to send an american -- an awful concept to think that we are going to send an american. devaughn with this person might to a terrorist might be. -- think about 28 terrorists might be. people have multiple weapons at home -- anybody in here? people who have weatherized ammunition. this is the list of suspects for terrorism. do you think you might want a trial before you get sent to guantanamo bay? we do need to be careful. finally, i would say what makes us a bigger party is what -- is ultimately, the message of optimism.
7:58 pm
there is a painting by robert bly and he said, you should paint like a man coming over a hill singing. when i think of what our message should be, i think of patrick henry -- give me liberty or give me death. i think of the passion of the founding fathers, of those who stood up for the fourth amendment, the first amendment, the second amendment, with passion. terrorists are bad people. zore regas and murderers. we give them all -- so are regas so are rapists and murderers. we give them all trials. we want to stand up for our system. when we come -- become the party that stands of and proclaims our message like a man coming over a hill singing, then we will be the dominant party again. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]
7:59 pm
>> senator paul? senator paul? we have a gift here from our republican party to say thank you so much for being here. >> thank you. [applause] >> tonight on c-span, duende -- q and a, with charles bolden.
8:00 pm
charles bolden >> this week on "q&a," a talk with participants in the 2013 -- charles bold yep talks about his decision to attend the united states naval academy. >> charles bolden, nasa administrator, if you had your choice, would you rather be an astronaut in the shuttle or run the nasa administration? >> ooh. since i'm running nasa right now, i'd rather be doing what i'm doing. i am a person who, i live in the moment. people who know me know i
9:12 pm
what would be more interesting


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on